the supreme court found part of the voting rights act unconstitutional today. and the jury in george zimmerman's murder trial saw pictures of trayvon martin's body for the first time. turn away when the pictures were shown. you might want to do that, too, when we show the pictures later in the show. >> breaking news from the supreme court, the decision part of the voting rights act. >> the supreme court strikes down the key enforcement mechanism. >> the court struck down the map. >> gutting the landmark voting rights act. >> becomes a game. >> how do we write the modern map? >> it means it punts back to congress. >> the president is going to have to own this. >> how likely do you think congress will do something like that? >> i don't think they're mature enough. >> it took us almost 100 years to get where we are today. >> renewed four times, most recently in 2006.

>> every time it comes up for reauthorization we got support. >> you have, in many ways, revoked a lot of what was gain understand the civil rights movement. >> will it take another 100 years to fix it. >> >> last time, strom thurmond voted on it. >> because of the election of the first black president, means that well, racism is over. >> and with racism, structural problems are fixed. perhaps it is time to get rid of the voting rights act. >> it stopped the south carolina voter id law. >> we just came out of elections that we had to use section five to protect voters. >> miami, florida, waiting as long as seven hours to vote. >> that was last year. >> from the start in this country, black people were treated differently in our laws,

the constitution said that the black people in the united states should each count as 3/4 of a person, then when they were freed, they were not exactly welcomed into the voting booths. they were subject to all sorts of discrimination, including murder, for simply attempting to register to vote, never mind actually voting. something had to be done but it took the country 100 years to do it. and in 1965. president johnson signed the voting rights act into law. it said essentially that in the parts of the country where discrimination against the black voters was the most extreme, the federal government would have oversight for any changes made in voting procedures in those areas. the worst offenders being alabama, georgia, louisiana, mississippi, south carolina, virginia, and parts of north carolina and arizona.

the so-called coverage formula in section 4 of the voting rights act was based on where the worst discrimination was occurring at that time. it is that section that was ruled unconstitutional today by a majority of the supreme court, even though the voting rights act had been renewed by congress several times since 1965, including as recently as 2006 by a republican-controlled house. and a republican-controlled senate. and then signed by republican president george w. bush. chief justice john roberts, majority supreme court opinion believes that the republican congress and that republican president did not know what they were doing. if congress had started from scratch in 2006, it plainly could not have enacted the president coverage formula. it would have been irrational

for congress to distinguish between the states in such a fundamental way based on such data, when today's statistics tell an entirely different story. and it would have been irrational to base the voting tests 40 years ago when such tests have is been illegal since that time, but that is exactly what congress has done. attorney general eric holder had this reaction. >> i am deeply disappointed, deeply disappointed with the court's decision in this matter. this decision represents a serious setback for voting rights and has the potential to negatively affect millions of americans across the country. congress needs to act to make sure that every american has equal access to the polls. the department also will work with congress and other elected community leaders to formulate potential legislative proposals to address voting rights discrimination.

because on their own, existing statutes cannot totally fill the void left by today's supreme court ruling. and i am hopeful that new protections can and will pass in this session of congress. the voting rights act has always had strong bipartisan support on capitol hill. and today's ruling should not change that. >> joining me now are msnbc's melissa harris-perry and amy howe. amy, the court surprised me today when it decided that the formulas that congress was using in legislation in 2006 were simply too old to be used in legislation in 2006. they -- you have farm legislation that uses formulas from the 1930s. you have medicaid legislation that repeatedly uses formulas that have been set for decades, and one of the reason, the political agenda for changing those formulas actually has a sort of quicksand in it.

so i'm not aware -- are you aware of any previous case where the court simply said your political process at arriving at this formula is something that we just don't think is workable, based on the dates of the information you're using? >> well, i don't know that there is any case that says that. what the supreme court said was that back when congress passed the voting rights act in 1965, the voting discrimination goes on in the south and some other places was so pervasive, that the kind of voting rights act were justified. so today it needs to make sure that the voting reflects the current needs and that congress can't use 40-year-old data to do that. >> but melissa, the votes included members that represented those areas where the so-called burden is imposed.

>> that is right, and i think we have to be very careful here, because for folks who are not constitutional scholars or don't follow the voting rights act. when we say burden it sounds as though there is a penalty attached, that there is some sort of federal law that comes in. and that is not accurate. what pre-clearance did was to put the burden on states that had a sorry record of democratic -- action. in other words, rather than acting towards the expansion of democracy, these are jurisdictions that consistently work to restrict democracy, and as a result they had to demonstrate that any rule change that they wanted to bring had to in fact, meet this test. a test that in fact, the rule would not again restrict democracy. and we have in our constitution, in the 14th amendment, a very clear example of saying that states that have a sorry record

have to reach a higher standard. and that is of course, that after the civil war you didn't just get to come back into the union. you had very specific rules that had to be followed in order to have full sort of states rights back in the union again. and it is because of what they had done under the context of the civil war. the same thing is true here, it is fully constitutional to treat states differently based on their behavior. >> justice ginsburg, hubris is a fit word for today's demolition of the voting rights act. amy, this is -- the majority of this court, these republican appointees claim to be not activist judges who let law stand where written by congress whenever possible.

this reach into a formula used in the internal calculation of law does seem to me to be real judicial activism. >> i think both sides tend to define activism as a decision that you disagree with. what the majority said, they felt like they gave congress a warning shot back in 2009 when it decided another case involving a similar issue. and in that case, they said current burdens have to be justified by current needs. and they felt like they had given congress a chance to solve the problem. what they saw as the problem. congress didn't take them up on the opportunity, and they said we have no choice other than to act. >> and melissa, i suppose it is conceivably worse -- >> what is so ugly about both this decision and affirmative action decision, what they do is

gut or signal quite clearly what their preference and positions are , but they're so cowardly that they sort of punt it back, what we have is a punt to congress that says if you can come up with a formula that we find acceptable, then, in fact, the fourth section of the voting rights act could give teeth back to the fifth section of the voting rights act, which of course was not actually touched here. of course, the problem is that the justices are pretty notoriously horrible social scientists. and these are true, not just these justices but far back, they are lovely in terms of their understanding of the law. but when it comes to understanding how social sciences work, they actually generally don't rely on these sorts of claims. and when they do, they often do so in ways that are specious, just allow them to make the

claims they want to make. so to send back to the 1113th, to now make a new cover formula is frustrating, problematic in their willingness to punt on this action. >> and if congress did actually take this up, and sent back to the supreme court, they actually then voted on exactly the same formula and sent it back, would the supreme court then claim again they didn't know what they were voting on? >> it is hard to say. they would want to look at the record that congress created. i think one of the things that frustrated the majority was it felt like congress had arrived at its conclusion that it was going to renew the voting rights act before it actually compiled the record. if there were enough findings in the record, it would depend a lot on the particular challenges which i'm sure would wind up in court quite quickly.

>> well, melissa, they had a large number of hearings before this last reauthorization in 2006. this legislation had as much premeditation as you could find in virtually any legislation that moves through there. and congress made its decision and cast its votes. >> there was absolutely a mountain of data. and also, even by -- i mean, our standards now of what counts as bipartisan is one or two members from the other side. you know, managing to come over, these were truly bipartisan votes. nearly, basically unanimous on -- in the senate, nearly unanimous in the house of representatives. after a mountain of data that was presented about not only historical wrongs, but ongoing attempts. and look, if anyone needs sort of you know, just a clear recognition of what these states look like, all we need to do is look at what happened in the 2012 election cycle.

now there is an argument to be made that many states that were not covered under pre-clearance were actually some of the most egregious violators. but the notion of what happened in the voting rights and particularly in pre-clearance was to stop the sort of things going on in states that were not covered, was an argument for extending it. not to replace it. thank you for joining us. and tomorrow, we'll have filmmaker dustin lance black, jean potrasky will be watching, not just because she wants to marry her partner, but because her cousin is chief justice. and together, they have waited for recognition for all of this time of their relationship. all tomorrow on "the last word's" coverage.

more on today's decision with joy reid and doctor pernell joseph, coming up next. i've see. otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] if you can't stand the heat, get off the test track. get the mercedes-benz you've been burning for

at the summer event, going on now at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. hurry, before this opportunity cools off. we didn't have u-verse back in my day. you couldn't just... guys... there you are. you know you couldn't just pause a show in one room, then... where was i... you couldn't pause a show in one room then start playing it in another. and...i'm talking to myself... [ male announcer ] call to get u-verse tv for just $19 a month for 2 years with qualifying bundles. rethink possible.

a democratic texas state senator is in the middle of what might turn out to be a 13-hour filibuster of a republican bill that would severely restrict abortion rights in the state of texas. state senator wendy davis of ft. worth began the filibuster at 12:18 this afternoon in order to keep the republican a majority from voting on the bill. she will have to keep speaking until after midnight, texas time, when the 30-day special legislative session ends. rules of the state senate say that she has to remain standing. she cannot lean on her desk or take any breaks, let's see if she can do that. up next, the history of voting rights and wrongs in this country. i want to make things more secure.

[ whirring ] [ dog barks ] i want to treat more dogs. ♪ our business needs more cases. [ male announcer ] where do you want to take your business? i need help selling art. [ male announcer ] from broadband to web hosting to mobile apps, small business solutions from at&t have the security you need to get you there. call us. we can show you how at&t solutions can help you do what you do... even better. ♪

>> three and a half centuries ago, the first negros arrived at jamestown. they did not arrive in brave ships, in search of a home for freedom. they did not mingle fear and joy and expectation that in this new

world anything would be possible to a man strong enough to reach for it. they came in darkness, and they came in chains. and today, we strike away the last major shackle of those fierce and ancient bonds. >> joining me now, msnbc's joy reid and director of the center for the study of race and democracy at tufts university, and the author of dark days, right nights. your reaction to this? >> i think it is a disgrace for

democracy, because when we think about the voting rights act it will be a cap stone between 1954 and '65, i call the heroic time period, we think about the brown period, rosa parks, little rock, the movements of february 1st, 1960. medgar evers, the freedom riders, and 1965, you get to the voting rights act, and many participated to have a multi-cultural voting rights act. >> and joy, the majority opinion today did not seem to have a grasp of everything that professor joseph just described. >> right, it is a sort of white-washed version of history that republicans say that was then, this is now, it was the

voting rights act succeeded, mission accomplished. and then challenging congress saying they should have come up with a new formula. they forget history again. the voting rights was challenged, 1966, it was challenged three years later, you're talking about the first time they tried to renew it in 1970, the democrats worried any change to it could bring the bill down, they wound up, '75, the same thing happened. you have barbara jordan trying to expand it, bringing in hispanics in california and new york. and worrying all the time that just that change, the tweak, could bring the whole thing down, again, this was with democratic congresss. so when you think how difficult it was to change the formula, when they finally did a big extension, it was 45 years, to >> this is the history of the

formulas, very difficult to get them in the 50 states, it is true whether it is the farm bill, medicaid, all sort of things that have these formula. it is why they're very difficult to undo them. why every time you renew one of those laws you are actually reauthorizing that particular formula as the best one we can come up with under these governing circumstances. >> yeah, and when we think about the whole notion that the formula needed to be changes, that is nonsense, because what it did was preemptively stop what had occurred. when the first africans came to jamestown, 1776, was founded as a nation, for the next 100 years, the idea that 45 or 48 years later we can stop because we're such a fantastic success is really disingenuous, i also

want to talk about congressman john lewis, who was beaten, bloody sunday, 1965, march 9th, they did turn around tuesday, and president johnson made a heroic speech before a joint address of congress when he talks about we shall overcome. and compares the democrats beaten in selma, to the patriots who fought at lexington. millions have put their lives on the line. congressman louis, his skull was cracked and fractured for democracy. this is a bad day for democracy, it is very ironic, they're doing it on the 50th anniversary of 1963, when is one of the best years in the american history. >> let's listen to what congressman louis had to say about this today. >> i didn't think that on that day, when president johnson signed the voting rights act, that i would live to see five

members of the united states supreme court undoing what president johnson did. and i have one of the pins that he used to sign that law at my home in atlanta. and when i get home, i would pick up that pin. >> let's take a look at congressman louis back then, before he was in the congress at that bill signing with lbj. >> has not been long. >> joy, this supreme court majority seems to think that the issues that were being addressed that day have evaporated. >> yeah, they're using that image as an excuse in barack obama's election, and also they're attempting to blame the victims. they're saying you, the african-american voters, latino voters, we're going to put it on you, you're coming out would be proof.

you know, john roberts had the same attitude toward the voting rights act in 1982 when he worked for the justice department, this guy has tried to get rid of the voting rights act, it happened not 40 years, his attitude has not changed, his rationale has changed. >> joy reid, and professor joseph, thank you for joining us. coming up, day two in the trial of george zimmerman, and what the jury heard and saw today on trayvon martin's photos, we'll show you the photographs, and we'll warn you when we show those photographs coming up. en you have a migraine bayer migraine formula, means powerful relief. its triple action formula targets migraines for relief of the tough pain, and symptoms that come with it. try targeted relief with the power of bayer.

congestion, for it's smog. but there are a lot of people that do ride the bus. and now that the busses are running on natural gas, they don't throw out as much pollution to the earth. so i feel good. i feel like i'm doing my part to help out the environment.

in the spotlight tonight, the state of florida versus george zimmerman who has pled not guilty by reason of self defense in the second degree murder of trayvon martin. perhaps one of the most evidentiary information in the case today, was the placement of trayvon martin's body after he was shot and killed by george zimmerman. the prosecution established this by the testimony of sergeant raymondo. it was the first time the jury saw the position of trayvon martin's body. because it is a crucial aspect of this case, we are now going to show you three pictures of

trayvon martin's body, the pictures that were shown to the jury today. these pictures and the accompanying testimony were disturbing enough to trayvon martin's father that he left the courtroom. trayvon martin's mother stayed in the room, but she looked away when the pictures were exhibited. you certainly have that option of looking away now, too. the first photo is at the very beginning of what i'm going to show you. here is the testimony of sergeant anthony raymondo. >> is that a fair and accurate depiction? >> yes. >> did you see any movement of trayvon martin's body as you approached him? >> no, sir, i did not. >> after you moved his body did you try to get a pulse? >> yes, i did. >> how did you do that? >> same carotid artery. >> and did you get a pulse. >> no. >> did you hear anything when

you performed cpr on trayvon martin? >> yes, i did. >> what did you hear? >> bubbling sounds. >> and what did that mean to you? >> it meant that air was escaping or getting into the chest in a manner it was not supposed to be. >> what do you recognize that as, sir? >> that is mr. martin's body. >> and is that the way it appeared after he was pronounced after your efforts and the officer's efforts? >> yes. >> sergeant raymondo explained what he did. >> did you or anybody else put anything over his body? >> yes, sir. >> and what was that? >> i put an emergency blanket over mr. martin's body, sir. >> and what was the purpose of that? >> well, one, it was respect for the deceased, two, it was to mitigate the situation, and

three to preserve any physical evidence on the body, sir. >> is that how trayvon martin's body appeared after you placed the medical blanket on top of it? >> yes, sir. >> also testifying today was seline bahadoor who said she saw what appeared to be a fight outside her window. >> and if you could, describe to the jury what you saw at that time. >> i saw what looked as figures and arms flailing. >> figures, meaning more than one figure? >> yes. >> and at the time you first observed the two individuals, were the individuals erect, standing? were they on the ground? crouched? how would you describe the individuals? >> they were in a standing position. >> joining me now, a former criminal prosecutor, and from

san francisco, ap reporter, carl hightower. faith, i want to get to the two photographs we saw there that show the position of the body. the one that was the undisturbed version, where the officer arrived, showing trayvon martin's arms under his body. this is a crucial piece of evidence, isn't it? >> yes, it is, george zimmerman already gave statements saying after he shot trayvon martin he spread his arm it's out out and spread them on the ground, and when they got there, trayvon martin was cold on the ground with his arms underneath him. you cannot underestimate the powerful evidence and the jury seeing the pictures. this case became very real for them today. the second degree murder charge is no longer just a stamp on a piece of paper. that is somebody's child, brother, friend and student who laid down in that grass that night and died alone. and that emotional aspect of his testimony was so powerful in

court today. >> kyle, hightower, you were in the courtroom today, as i said, trayvon martin's father left the room right after that testimony. and those photographs, and his mother, of course, was looking away when the photographs were shown. tell us about the feelings in the courtroom at that time. what was your sense of how the jury was experiencing this? >> well, when trayvon martin's father, tracy martin left the courtroom, several heads turned in his direction to see. it was undeniable, seeing the pictures, he was definitely affected. and several jurors, like i said, looked in his direction and saw the motion he was going through. >> and kyle, do we know if this is the first time that trayvon martin's parents saw those photographs? >> it is, it is the first crime scene photos that were shown to the jurors. and as faye said, they were very impacting, left an impression on

the jurors. they were writing, taking notes. also, when the pictures were shown they stopped in their tracks and looked at the screen. >> and faith, my sense of sergeant is raymondo, i felt an emotional undercurrent to his testimony, too. this was the guy who gave cpr to trayvon martin. he did it literally mouth-to-mouth mouth. he didn't rush back to his car to get the protection that they sometimes use, often use for that. and i -- it seemed like he -- he was delivering himself, an emotional connection to the scene. >> this is a police officer with years of experience who has probably seen and heard it all, who testified and who has probably testified hundreds of times in court. and today, he was moved when he talked about how he tried to revive trayvon martin as he lay there, trying to breathe.

not having any family around him. no one around him. george zimmerman walking around, pretty multiple emotionless, the way they described him. and this officer tried to save his life. he didn't. >> and what about the witness testimony, she didn't get into real specifics other than to establish she seemed to see two figures standing, arms flailing, and then she herself testified she turned away, didn't she? >> she did, and that obviously had an impact on the jury. they were taking notes. but the defense recognized it, too, i believe. because they attacked, you know, her assertion that no, she heard movement, that george zimmerman was moving away from the vehicle and before trayvon martin in the encounter. and that goes against the theory that he was being attacked.

>> faith, the judge is considering whether to allow previous 911 calls by george zimmerman to be introduced as evidence. this was always the plan. and the defense could have objected to this earlier. but they didn't object to it until today. what is the significance of it? what are the stakes for each side in that decision? >> in order to prove second degree murder, the state has to show that george zimmerman operated with ill will or a depraved mind. when he referred to him, he talked about -- trayvon martin was alone, remember, he was walking alone, but george zimmerman talked about him as if he was with a group of people. these a-holes always get away, these [ bleep ] punks, again, more than one person. so he had an attitude about trayvon martin, attributing the attitude about trayvon martin, these people who he didn't think belonged in his neighborhood. >> thank you both for joining me tonight. coming up, there is a new

senator from the state of massachusetts, but i don't have to tell you who he is, i told you who would win the race months ago. and in the rewrite tonight, the people who are trying to rewrite the law on treason. "i'm part of an american success story,"

"that starts with one of the world's most advanced distribution systems," "and one of the most efficient trucking networks," "with safe, experienced drivers." "we work directly with manufacturers," "eliminating costly markups," "and buy directly from local farmers in every region of the country." "when you see our low prices, remember the wheels turning behind the scenes, delivering for millions of americans, everyday. "dedication: that's the real walmart" from capital one... boris earns unlimited rewards for his small business. can i get the smith contract, please? thank you. that's three new paper shredders. [ boris ] put 'em on my spark card. [ garth ] boris' small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase every day. great businesses deserve unlimited rewards. read back the chicken's testimony, please. "buk, buk, bukka!" [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards.

choose 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase every day. told you i'd get half. what's in your wallet? what are you guys doing? having some fiber! with new phillips' fiber good gummies. they're fruity delicious! just two gummies have 4 grams of fiber! to help support regularity! i want some... [ woman ] hop on over! [ marge ] fiber the fun way, from phillips'. in-wash scent boosters, here with my favorite new intern, jimmy. mmm! fresh!

and it's been in the closet for 12 weeks! unbelievable! unstopables! follow jimmy on youtube. according to my twitter feed there has been some confusion on how to sign the on-line petition to have the 501(c)(4) enforced, which would mean that no political organizations of any kind would be allowed to have 501(c)(4) tax exempt status, since the law says that that status is for organizations exclusively engaged in social welfare. more than 11,000 of you did find your way to the whitehouse.gov page to do that. you can go to our facebook page, and find our link on the last word, msnbc.com, and we've got to get there and do it, i guess

by july 6th. there is a deadline on this thing. coming up next in the rewrite, edward snowden and treason, guilty or not guilty, tweet me your guesses, but please, do not read the constitution of the united states before tweeting me your guesses. that would be cheating. that is next. it's just so frust. ♪ the middle of this special moment and i need to run off to the bathroom. ♪ i'm fed up with always having to put my bladder's needs ahead of my daughter. ♪ so today, i'm finally talking to my doctor about overactive bladder symptoms. [ female announcer ] know that gotta go feeling? ask your doctor about prescription toviaz. one toviaz pill a day significantly reduces

sudden urges and accidents, for 24 hours. if you have certain stomach problems or glaucoma, or can not empty your bladder, you should not take toviaz. get emergency medical help right away if your face, lips, throat or tongue swells. toviaz can cause blurred vision, dizziness, drowsiness and decreased sweating. do not drive, operate machinery or do unsafe tasks until you know how toviaz affects you. the most common side effects are dry mouth and constipation. talk to your doctor about toviaz. are proven to be effective pain relievers tylenol works by blocking pain signals to your brain bayer back & body's dual action formula includes aspirin, which blocks pain at the site. try the power of bayer back & body. there was this and this. she got a parking ticket... ♪ and she forgot to pay her credit card bill on time. good thing she's got the citi simplicity card.

it doesn't charge late fees or a penalty rate. ever. as in never ever. now about that parking ticket. [ grunting ] [ male announcer ] the citi simplicity card is the only card that never has late fees, a penalty rate, or an annual fee, ever. go to citi.com/simplicity to apply. you know, snowden is not guilty of treason in my view, and i think people throwing that word around in his direction have not read what the constitution says about it. it is the only crime actually specified in the constitution. what he has done doesn't meet that level, we'll get into it at some other time. and this is that time. since i said that two weeks ago, there has been no slowdown in

people accusing edward snowden of treason, it is one thing to do it on twitter, but another thing from people swearing an oath, to defend the constitution. he makes him repeat after him that they will "support and defend the constitution of the united states." that speaker of the house has called ed snowden a traitor, but he is the same speaker who said somebody should go to jail for the way the u.s. processes tax exempt status. he said that before he knew somebody committed a crime, and without the name of the crime that somebody may go to jail. the local media has grown so used to it that they ignore it. from the other end of the seniority ladder, there is this.

>> he made an oath when he got clearance to get some of the most sensitive information about how we go after a suspected terrorist, we go after suspected criminals who wish to do our country harm. and he made an oath, to this country. he was not just a random employee. when you violate that oath, to our country you commit treason to this country. >> okay, ed snowden was a private employee of a company, so probably didn't take that oath. we have not yet confirmed whether or not he took any kind of oath in relation to his nsa work. but even if he took an oath, or was a sworn-in member of the house of representatives, and violated that oath, that would not be treason.

if ed snowden was a member of the congress, and then stole classified communication from the committees' files and distributed it the way he has been distributing information. that would, also, not be treason, it is the most difficult crime, perhaps the most difficult crime to commit in america. and that is the way the founding fathers wanted it. they wrote that law directly into the constitution so that it couldn't be changed. they specified that there must be two witnesses of your treasonable act. the constitution specifies that confessing to treason is not enough to get you convicted of treason unless you confess in open court so you can confess on tv. and you can confess to the fbi. but those confessions would mean absolutely nothing in your trial for treason.

no specifics are made for any other crime in the constitution. and here is what the constitution says it is. treason against the united states shall consist only in levying war against them, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. that sentence as interpreted by the supreme court means that it is impossible, impossible to commit treason, unless the united states is in a declared war. not the so-called war on terror, not the cold war, not the vietnam war, not the korean war, because those were not wars declared by congress. the last time the united states fought a war declared by congress was world war ii. and the last person charged with and convicted of treason was an american who helped the japanese

during world war ii. when the constitution refers to giving aid and comfort to our enemies it means the enemy identified in a congressional declaration of war. like japan and germany in world war ii. so no matter how hard you try tonight, you cannot commit treason against the united states of america, because we are not in a war declared by congress against an enemy declared in a constitutional declaration of war. china is not our enemy. you might not like china. russia is not our enemy, you might not like russia, but russia has never been our enemy, which is why not one of the americans caught spying for the old soviet union was ever charged with treason, many people believe that julius and ethel rosenberg were convicted of treason, but they were actually convicted of the espionage law, the same charge that they were using against ed snowden.

and please note that none of the three charges against ed snowden is treason. do you think the justice department would just decide to go easy on snowden and not charge him with treason if they could? that very young congressman you just heard spouting off mindlessly about treason is sadly a very good relationship in congress for a country which is so ignorant of the constitution. a country in which for many, if not most, feelings are more important than facts. for the speaker of the house and the young congressman and half the people on twitter, if it feels like treason, it must be treason. it would never occur to them to check what the constitution says about treason, because they do not know that it is the constitution and the constitution alone that defines

treason. so call ed snowden what you will, but if you call him a traitor, if you say he is guilty of treason, you're not really labelling him, you're labelling yourself, you're letting us know that for you, facts don't matter. you're letting us know that for you, you get to define treason any way you want, even though the founding fathers defined it for you very clearly in the constitution, the constitution that you have not read and do not understand. you are labelling yourself as a perfectly acceptable member of the current congress. where they all take an oath, to support and defend the constitution of the united states. but none of them, none of them take an oath, to read it. [ male announcer ] i've seen incredible things.

otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪

energy efficient appliances. you can get a tax write off for those. a programmable thermostat, very smart, saves money. ♪ cash money sorry. i see you have allstate claim free rewards, for every year you don't have a claim, you'll get money off your home insurance policy. put it towards... [ glass shatters ] [ girl ] dad! dad! [ girl screams ] noise canceling headphones? [ nicole ] that's a great idea. [ male announcer ] home insurance that saves you money for not having a claim? that's allstate home insurance with claim free rewards. talk to an allstate agent... [ doorbell rings ] and let the good life in. . tonight, we have a new frontrunner in the race for mayor of new york. anthony weiner, yes, that anthony weiner, and we have a winner in the senate race in massachusetts. that is next. i want to make things more secure.

[ whirring ] [ dog barks ] i want to treat more dogs. ♪ our business needs more cases. [ male announcer ] where do you want to take your business? i need help selling art. [ male announcer ] from broadband to web hosting to mobile apps, small business solutions from at&t have the security you need to get you there. call us. we can show you how at&t solutions can help you do what you do... even better. ♪

if you have high cholesterol, here's some information that may be worth looking into. in a clinical trial versus lipitor, crestor got more high-risk patients' bad cholesterol to a goal of under 100. getting to goal is important, especially if you have high cholesterol plus any of these risk factors because you could be at increased risk for plaque buildup in your arteries over time. and that's why when diet and exercise alone aren't enough to lower cholesterol i prescribe crestor. [ female announcer ] crestor is not right for everyone. like people with liver disease or women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. tell your doctor about other medicines you're taking. call your doctor right away if you have muscle pain or weakness, feel unusually tired, have loss of appetite, upper belly pain, dark urine or yellowing of skin or eyes. these could be signs of rare but serious side effects. is your cholesterol at goal? ask your doctor about crestor. [ female announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

i am hereby declaring ed markey the winner to be in the senate race. that was just 180 days ago here on "the last word." and tonight, ed markey made it official with almost all the votes counted in massachusetts. he is leading gabriel gomez 55-40, here is ed markey addressing his supporters. >> thanks to the opportunities this country gave me, this son of a milkman is going to serve the state of massachusetts in the united states senate. >> steve kornacki, i have been meaning to tell ed markey that nobody under 60 knows what a milkman is. that was somebody who used to deliver milk to homes in

america. but that son of a milkman is something he has been saying for a very long time. >> it is interesting, in 1984, paul tsongas was diagnosed with leukemia, and was not going to run. add that moment, ed markey who was a young, up and coming eight-year member of congress decided he was going to run. he got into the race and quickly realized that john kerry, who was the sitting lieutenant governor, and another congressman had the upper hand. he backed out of the race and said i'm going to wait for another day. and he waited and he waited and he waited. and 29 years later, after 37 years in the u.s. house, he is now going to go to the senate. >> and he set a record? >> yes, the previous record in the house before being elected to the senate, 32 years, the man from massachusetts who gave up

being speaker of the house after 32 years to be a freshman in the senate, served one term and died shortly there after. >> and the markey campaign, he has huge seniority, the trouble is he is in the minority. and the only way for the seniority to matter is for the democrats to get it back. his majority shows you how soon they think the democrats will get the majority. >> ed markey could have run in 2010. you had climate change, ed markey did not want to leave the house then -- now it is like you know what? yeah, i got the prerogatives of the junior senator. >> anthony weiner, five points up now. >> i got some opinions on anthony weiner that had nothing to do with the pictures, i think it would be the bad thing for new york city. but i tell you, he is the only one showing life on the campaign trail.

>> turns out name recognition is worth something in this town. >> it is a part of it. steve kornacki, thank you for joining us, chris hayes is up next. >> good-bye, voting rights. let's play "hardball." good evening, i'm chris matthews up in new york. me start with this. a happy day for reince priebus. today the united states supreme court lopped off the head of the voting rights act that removed a key weapon used to stop states from suppressing african-americans and other voters they don't like showing up at the polls. what a joy this must be to the republican national headquarters where reince priebus holds sway and opens the door for far more voter suppression by republican-dominated state legislatures.